I'm very sad this neo macbook thing isn't a replacement for my macbook retina in any way. I'm not really sure what I'll do to replace it; I'd been hoping this "phone chip based macbook" would be of the old retina form factor. But instead it's just a nerfed air. My kids have the macbook airs and my little 2017 retina is substantially dramatically smaller and more portable. At least until the battery dies.
I'm not sure why nobody mentions this, but for windows and linux, you can fiddle with a "split keyboard" by using two keyboards. You can put your right hand over the right part of the right keyboard, the left and over the left part of left keyboard, and ... type away. It just works, and usually it is free, almost everyone I know has a pile of keyboards somewhere.
Irritatingly, this doesn't work by default on the mac where the meta keys only affect the keys on the keyboard owning the depressed key (IE left shift and right keyboard l will not result in L).
It uses a bit more desk space, but is otherwise a pretty good way to test out "do I want a split keyboard?"
I actually want to try that just to see the looks on people's faces when I'm typing on two keyboards. It's the opposite of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8qgehH3kEQ
On windows and linux, yes, without any added anything holding the shift (or windows or control or alt) key on one keyboard will modify the behavior of any key with any other keyboard (I have a vague memory of getting 3 keyboards and hitting ctl-alt-del across the three keyboards, on windows, and it behaving "normally").
You need some added tools to make it work with macos, as someone else pointed out
These days I just use a single keyboard (the IBM M4-1 keyboard) and get up frequently.
He was very serious about his physics and wrote that stuff down.
Someone else wrote down his stories. His stories were probably often not entirely accurate, and whomever wrote down his stories also probably had an agenda. So books "by feynman" should be treated with some caution since they're written not by feynman.
His physics and science are obviously not "a sham". It is in fact possible for someone to be great and awful at the same time.
So, let's look at UnitedHealth Group; do they deliver health care?
If there were single payer, what would their role be in the healthcare delivery process?
Apparently they made 2.3 billion in profits on 113 billion in revenue in Q3 of 2025. How much of that friction would evaporate if they weren't in the healthcare delivery infrastructure.
Compare UPS or FedEx to USPS; the first two companies are profit-seeking, yet very competitive with the 'public-oriented' (and legally privileged) USPS. Having the government in control does not necessarily lead to better value.
They are very competitive in the places where most people live, but the USPS delivers to many more places that the others do not, and still maintains cost competitiveness.
This turns out to be a decent analogy to healthcare: insurance companies do not provide the coverage, universality and simplicity that a single payer system would; instead, you'll get something like insurance coverage networks providing spotty and inconsistent care.
Either approach has upsides and downsides, but single payer, universal coverage for basic and emergency healthcare seems like a no-brainer.
I've lived in cities where the city ran the utilities; they were generally way cheaper than the utilities from PG&E.
The USPS is obligated to deliver letters at the same cost to everyone in the country, and they do a pretty okay job at it -- I've certainly had horrid events from UPS and FedEx, and those guys get to just pass the crap delivery tasks off to USPS if they don't like it.
Lots of old people in the USofA seem to like their government run medical insurance, same with people in the VA system.
The Doge crew spent months looking for fraud waste and abuse and I don't see any big law enforcement results from all the fraud they found, and I don't see anyone crowing over all the waste they curtailed.
It's possible that the world's more complex than you imagine, and that sometimes people just do their jobs (IE the bureaucrats) and hard problems get solved.
Now, tell me again, what part of the health care system is UnitedHealth? What critical problem do they solve?
$2.3 billion is nothing in a $5 trillion system. Doctors make around $500 billion in the US. Their wages are much more significant than insurance profits.
$2.3bn is profit after subtracting costs. Doctors charging time to deal with bureaucracy needed by insurance adds to the costs that are already factored into the revenue. Single payer wouldn't just eliminate the profit, but also those costs.
That's 2.3 billion in ONE QUARTER of 2025, on a revenue of 115 billion. In a quarter. There are four quarters in a year.
$5 trillion is how much is spent in all of healthcare in the USA for the whole year.
UnitedHealth's revenue was $500 billion (and net profits is 10 billion) for the year. For one insurance company. There are 6 that each have more than $80 billion per year in revenue. This isn't to mention the billing departments for each hospital, the claims processing providers smaller doctors need to enlist, the endless hours interacting with insurance companies, etc.
And tell me, please, what specific healthcare outcomes are driven by insurance companies?
Insurance companies are instrumental in ensuring that useless procedures arent performed. Over use of service is one of the biggest reasons for inflated costs in our healthcare system. Now to be clear I would prefer a medicare for all system implementing that, but under m4a doctor salaries are still a major issue that need to be addressed.
Basically all healthcare spending in the US goes through insurance companies, Im not sure why you have a problem with that. Under m4a medicare would spend trillions a year, would you be complaining about that too? Large profits would be a problem, but that doesnt exist. Our healthcare system is rotten top to bottom, insurance is part of that but imo it gets way too much blame for existing in the system the government has created.
Insurance companies basically mirror the reimbursement policies put in place by medicare. I'm sure most providers would gladly take lower reimbursement from a single provider over the chaos and pain driven by insurance companies right now.
Basically every provider does not take medicaid so I suspect you are wrong about that. Again Im not happy with the insurance situation, I just think its barely top 10 in terms of problems with our healthcare system. The bureaucracy is required because of our horrible fee for service payout system. Without getting rid of that m4a would still requires an army of billers because republicans would constantly be screaming about the government being scammed(and they wouldnt really be wrong, healthcare providers do tons of wasteful procedures and the bureaucracy is the only thing slowing that down(recent example I came across, currently we wake up obgyn's to perform emergency medically required abortion services at the hospital even though abortions can be done with a pill and the nocturnist can safely oversee the whole thing, no need to wake anyone up. This is only done so providers can charge us more money. This shit is happening constantly over and over again every time providers can find ways to nickel and dime us and patients have no choice)). We dont actually need single payer to get rid of fee for service so really I think private insurance is an orthogonal problem to the billing army.
My question about the safety of "FSD" or whatever autonomous cars is -- how much safety reputation can you burn in a new market that offers huge convenience? Which is more important, being first or being best?
Apple's famous for not being first, but being best to a well established market and cleaning up.
People certainly don't remember de havilland, who was first to the market of "passenger jet airliner".
I certainly won't be putting my kids in any of these, and especially not in a vehicle operated by a company with a "devil may care" approach to safety.
Sure, it works fine in Arizona or Texas; let's see it work okay with a snow storm in Boston.
I haven't used minio in years, and when I did I only fiddled around with it, but my recollection of it is that it's about the simplest build chain imaginable. Install modern golang, build minio, get single binary.
Anyone relying on an opensource tool like minio, needs to look at:
* organization supporting it
* the license
* the build chain
* who else uses it?
* the distribution artifact needed for production.
Once you've looked at that you can decide "is this an anchor I want to handcuff myself to and hope the anchor won't jump into the icy blue deep taking me and my dreams with it?"
If the org behind it ever decides to rugpull/elastic you, what're you gonna do? At least with something like minio, if they're still distributing the source it's trivial to build (and if you can't build it you should evaluate if you're in a position to rely on it).
Let's look at other cool open source things like SigNoz which distribute only docker artifacts (as far as I remember, anyhow) -- if they were to rugpull that people relying on it would be totally lost at sea.
This isn't to say that this isn't poor behavior on minio's part, but I feel like they've been signaling us for a while that they're looking to repay their VC patrons.
They have also removed the web UI and stopped updating the documentation for the community edition. The former is not extremely serious as the community can easily replace it. The latter is arguably the worst among all the changes that we know of. While they do redirect community documentation towards its enterprise counterpart, it's becoming clear that the differences in the community edition won't be addressed at all. That will make MinIO community edition less viable over time.
Overall, it's pretty clear that they don't view the OSS users kindly or want them around. I'm pretty sure that they would drop the entire community edition if they could do so legally and without much fuzz. You can expect more like this in the future. So this story shouldn't be seen simply as the loss of a docker image.
Right -- I think it's quite clear that if you're relying on the free minio you need to look elsewhere or peer up with some others and fork it.
And any adoption of a critical piece of software needs to have a risk calculus associated with it of "what if they get bought by CA, invaded by Russia and murdered, murder their wife and go to jail, or dedicate their remaining time on earth to writing haiku?"
Both open source software and commercially supported software have risks and mitigations. I'd argue that you're actually safer with open source software since you can pick up and keep running it, but that's not a trivial undertaking.
> I'd argue that you're actually safer with open source software since you can pick up and keep running it, but that's not a trivial undertaking.
I agree with that. It's just that I find it very annoying that these companies turn against the OSS (user) community after they've gained enough market share by taking advantage of the community's trust and network. This discussion thread itself is full of people calling the users 'entitled'. That's some level of gaslighting! The real question is, how much would these projects have succeeded if they had started under the same terms as the ones they've now switched to? If the answer is 'not very much', then that means the community added significant value to the product, which these companies are now refusing to share and running away with. These companies are the entitled ones, besides being deceptive and dishonest.
The case with MinIO is not as egregious as the others we have seen - elastic, for example. MinIO is still under an open source license. But their decisions to let the community edition documentation rot and to remove the web ui make it very clear that they're trying to make the community edition as unviable as possible without having to take the heat for going all out proprietary or source available. Does this tactic seem familiar? This exactly what Google does with AOSP. Slowly remove and replace its OSS parts with proprietary software and gradually kill the project. Again, it's deceptive, dishonest and distasteful.
Both free software and open source software have a tradition of not excluding anybody from participating in the process, community and contributions. But looking at how much certain companies damage the trust and fracture the community for some extra profit, it might be a good idea to start asking if they should even be given the opportunity to do so.
That certainly seems reasonable -- that the immune system needs practice or otherwise it will start using its ammo on other "hey that's me!" stuff and cause auto-immune diseases.
But I also have to wonder if the kids with auto-immune diseases or "common" allergies elsewhere might just die the first time they encounter some event that'd otherwise be caught and treated in "the first world" ?
Data Center end of life will take place on March 28, 2029
Data Center subscriptions and any associated Marketplace apps will expire on this date. To make this transition as smooth as possible, we’re winding down support in phases across the next 3 years, giving you plenty of time to plan your next steps.
On prem is ~1.5B in revenue for them. They're making a bet that their financials will improve if enough of that revenue moves to cloud spend even if they lose some folks who want or must have on prem. If you can't grow the TAM, you force the growth apparently.
First, I guess I'll just invoke Sturgeon's law[1] -- almost all software, especially if you don't really understand it, is crap, and probably the software you understand is also crap, you're just used to it. Good software is pretty tricky to make.
But second -- I use colima lots, on my home macs and my work macs, and it mostly just works. The profiles stuff is kinda annoying and I find myself accidentally running arm when I want x86, or other tedious config issues crop up. But it actually has been easier to live with than docker desktop where I'd run out of space and things would fall apart.
Docker on MacOS is broadly going work poorly relative to it on linux, just from having to run the docker stuff in a linux vm that's hiding somewhere behind the scenes.
If you find too much friction with any of these, probably it's easier to just run a linux vm on the mac and interact with docker in the 'native' environment. I've found UTM to be quite a bit easier to live with than virtualbox.
> almost all software, especially if you don't really understand it, is crap, and probably the software you understand is also crap, you're just used to it. Good software is pretty tricky to make.
Most software has issues, but Colima is noticeably worse than most software I've used. And the complete lack of documentation is definitely not normal.
No escape key? No problem! Ctl-[ to the rescue. If you really want to puzzle the kids let them loose on an old hpux or irix box where # is remapped to backspace and @ is remapped to kill...
That's a lovely terminal; makes me wish I'd held onto my vt220 just to show the kids all the weird things people used to have to put up with. I remember there was something deranged about it's keyboard that I eventually came to not really mind all that much. Eventually I spent years of my life in front of a decstation 3100 and I think I eventually got used to the strange layout.
Did you ever use those settings on an old printer terminal? Visible but unusual punctuation for erase and kill made sense with paper terminals, where back space was as non-destructive as forward space was.
(Amusingly, TianoCore makes BS destructive, and that breaks the spinners displayed by the NetBSD boot loader.)
One other amusing thing is that the LK201 et al. are RS423 at 4800 BPS 8N1, so with suitable voltage-level-converting adapters should be easier to plug in to modern SBC kit than a (non bimodal) PS/2 keyboard is.
Oh, I understand why those old-time sysvr3.2 and sysvr4 systems would default to # backspace / @ kill -- even in the early 90s most places that ran unix had a weird zoo of different keyboards that would randomly put the backspace (or delete, or both!) keys in weird an inspired places, but the @ and # are usually in the same place everywhere. There were also some really old terminals that were basically just "screen is printer without paper" without even vt100 emulation mode (maybe they had fancy termcaps that'd let you run vi, but we only ever just used them on servers that weren't actually used too often, in the server room).
To this day, I use a 1990s vintage PS/2 keyboard, with a chain of adapters, on my mac (an old IBM M4-1 keyboard/trackpoint thing). At least on the mac it works perfectly because you can remap the caps lock key to command; it works pretty poorly on windows but such is life. Also, I very often, even today, use the # key as something akin to "kill" but instead in modern bash in vi mode if you're in escape mode it comments out the whole line.
But woof, watching people who'd never interacted with real (and old) sysv derived unixes instantly going insane trying to type things with @ or # and not understanding what's going on... kids that's what everyone had to fight with in the bad old days...
EDIT:
and -- in old times, "backspace" and "delete" were actually different keys; bash and other modern shells hide this from you, (just as newline and carriage return were different actions) -- I guess learning how to type on a mechanical typewriter where you make the ! glyph with a ' and a backspace and a ., and where 1 and l were the same glyph, hopelessly burned the physicality of character rendering into me...
Heh! GNU groff, in particular its grotty driver, still does that to this day. There is a lengthy list of things that in ASCII or Latin-1 modes it composes with a character, a BS, and then another character.
reply